Author
Topic: Terror Attack in NYC? (Read 1643 times)

As usual with these Muslim immigrants we allow in to practice their peace. He was "on the radar," as they saying goes, and was interviewed, due to his connections to other people, but police could do nothing, lest we offend. He also was allowed into the country from his primarily Muslim country, under Obama, on a "Diversity Waiver" (an awful 1990 law championed by a New Yorker Chuck Schumer.)

And signed into law by H W Bush...But isn't it weird that Trump had fuck all to say after the shooting in LV...Nothing...It was far too soon to discuss policy according to Sarah Huckster at the press conference, and no-one has yet. But the day after this in NY, Trump is blaming Schumer and discussing policy. Weird...

And Trump doesn't have the blood of anyone else on his hands? I wonder how many people have been murdered since the shooting in LV by 'legal' guns that Trump didn't want to talk about? That's gone all quiet, as predicted because its a new shiny thing.

Incidentally, Trump cut back anti terrorism funds to NY didn't he? I wonder how much its costing to keep his extended family protected in different places 24/7?

I suggest anyone who looks like this be deported on sight. For starters.

Oh, and he was apparently ''radicalized'' after coming here. This is our country, these people don't belong here, and we don't have to accept this. There are provisions for removing Democrats from office (elections), judges from the bench (impeachment and removal), and to keep unwanted undesireables out (immigration legislation).

And signed into law by H W Bush...But isn't it weird that Trump had fuck all to say after the shooting in LV...Nothing...It was far too soon to discuss policy according to Sarah Huckster at the press conference, and no-one has yet. But the day after this in NY, Trump is blaming Schumer and discussing policy. Weird...

And Trump doesn't have the blood of anyone else on his hands? I wonder how many people have been murdered since the shooting in LV by 'legal' guns that Trump didn't want to talk about? That's gone all quiet, as predicted because its a new shiny thing.

Incidentally, Trump cut back anti terrorism funds to NY didn't he? I wonder how much its costing to keep his extended family protected in different places 24/7?

I know you didn't go to school here and not sure if you needed to pass any type of test upon getting a VISA or residency permit after you fled emigrated from the UK but the 2nd Amendment was written well before Trump was born! And Courts have upheld much of it, much to the consternation of the left.

Bush, and Reagan, (and obviously Obama) were awful on immigration but the true damage was done in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar Act (championed by a drunken Kennedy.)

Why should excessive funds go to NYC? The voters, apparently, want a "sanctuary city" and like illegals and Muslims. So let them deal with it, I guess. It is sad for the victims and their families though. But the price of diversity, I guess. If the people of NY and NYC want a safer society they could vote for new politicians and/or use local tax base to hire more cops, profile suspicious people, support ICE, etc. But they don't want to do so so "you reap what you sow," in a fashion. Sad deal and a bit insane to want people like this guy in your city.

I know you didn't go to school here and not sure if you needed to pass any type of test upon getting a VISA or residency permit after you fled emigrated from the UK but the 2nd Amendment was written well before Trump was born! And Courts have upheld much of it, much to the consternation of the left.

All the victims of what happened in LV are 'the left'? As I said at the time, it isn't a problem. It really isn't, because if it was, something would be done about it. I also said that the same thing could happen every day for six months and still nothing would be done, including any on here it might affect. And I'm right.

Quote

Bush, and Reagan, (and obviously Obama) were awful on immigration but the true damage was done in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar Act (championed by a drunken Kennedy.)

Why should excessive funds go to NYC? The voters, apparently, want a "sanctuary city" and like illegals and Muslims. So let them deal with it, I guess. It is sad for the victims and their families though. But the price of diversity, I guess. If the people of NY and NYC want a safer society they could vote for new politicians and/or use local tax base to hire more cops, profile suspicious people, support ICE, etc. But they don't want to do so so "you reap what you sow," in a fashion. Sad deal and a bit insane to want people like this guy in your city.

There is only so much we can do about people committing crimes who are already here. The asshole in Las Vegas violated dozens of laws, so I'm not sure what passing more would accomplish.

But we can reduce future acts of crime and terrorism simply by controlling our borders and allowing in only those who would actually be of bennefit to the country. Or better yet, implement a moritorium until we absorb and assimulate what we already have. Why is any of this even an issue? Oh, right, more future votes for the Demo-rats. Party Before Country!

Different issue. Why are you trying to turn the focus away from these putrid Muslims?

Oh its different? Funny that, because that's Trump's way of doing things. He refused point blank to discuss LV.. And absolutely refused to debate possible policy...Yet this happens in NY and all of a sudden he's the fucking oracle! Fucking hypocrites.

Oh its different? Funny that, because that's Trump's way of doing things. He refused point blank to discuss LV.. And absolutely refused to debate possible policy...Yet this happens in NY and all of a sudden he's the fucking oracle! Fucking hypocrites.

So what? Why is he a hypocrite? Because he isn't interested in your attack on the Constitution?

There is only so much we can do about people committing crimes who are already here. The asshole in Las Vegas violated dozens of laws, so I'm not sure what passing more would accomplish.

Course you don't. As I said, it isn't a problem...

Quote

But we can reduce future acts of crime and terrorism simply by controlling our borders and allowing in only those who would actually be of bennefit to the country. Or better yet, implement a moritorium until we absorb and assimulate what we already have. Why is any of this even an issue? Oh, right, more future votes for the Demo-rats. Party Before Country!

You know don't you that Trumps oft said 'Extreme vetting' already exists don't you? He isn't saying any more than hasn't been in place since about 2003. He's so full of shit and his supporters believe the demented twat.

So what? Why is he a hypocrite? Because he isn't interested in your attack on the Constitution?

No, a hypocrite because he values some lives and not others. Let's not be coy; He and the GOP are terrified of the NRA (Which should be honest and set itself up as an official political party) and are more scared of them than wanting people's right to live.

He and the GOP are terrified ofagree with the NRA (Which should be honest and set itself up as an official political partyis and organization that supports the 2nd amendment) and are more scared of them than wanting people's right to live.

No, a hypocrite because he values some lives and not others. Let's not be coy; He and the GOP are terrified of the NRA (Which should be honest and set itself up as an official political party) and are more scared of them than wanting people's right to live.

Terrified? We are the NRA dumbass. We like it. That would be like saying the Demokkkrats are terrified of BLM and Antifa. You’re on a roll today lemming. Go take your meds and stop embarrassing yourself.

No, a hypocrite because he values some lives and not others. Let's not be coy; He and the GOP are terrified of the NRA (Which should be honest and set itself up as an official political party) and are more scared of them than wanting people's right to live.

Oh bullshit. If you take that to it's logical extreme you'd be for banning cars and a million other things because people are killed using them. The majority of Americans support the right to self defense, and politicians fear losing their support. As they should be. The NRA is an organization set up by those people to speak on their behalf.

So that's three Amendments you've attacked today - the right to bear arms; the right to freedom of association; and the right to free speech. The Libs don't respect anyone else's rights, but are happy to use ours against us.

Trump ran on defending the borders, not further eroding our right to self defense. He isn't interested in ''debating'' the implementation of more ineffective gun laws. I could just as easily say it's hypocracy to claim the answer is more gun laws, when it's clear that won't fix the problem.

You know don't you that Trumps oft said 'Extreme vetting' already exists don't you? He isn't saying any more than hasn't been in place since about 2003. He's so full of shit and his supporters believe the demented twat.

No it isn't. This Muslim was interviewed and allowed to stay. Courts have said that Trump can't use the law to ban dangerous people from dangerous countries. Courts have said that police can't "profile." As I've said from the beginning that Trump is waaay too soft on immigration, for me. But when the choice was Hillary who pledged a no border policy or him with at least some curbs?

And, Trump is President. Not a king or dictator that can rule by fiat. He has to deal with Congress and Courts. He might want to not allow terrorist Muslims in (or allow them to stay) but he is limited on what he can do because Democrats and some Courts, apparently, want them.

I suggest anyone who looks like this be deported on sight. For starters.

Oh, and he was apparently ''radicalized'' after coming here. This is our country, these people don't belong here, and we don't have to accept this. There are provisions for removing Democrats from office (elections), judges from the bench (impeachment and removal), and to keep unwanted undesireables out (immigration legislation).

Gee, that guy doesn't look suspicious. He should've be summarily deported during the first interview as soon as the agent saw his appearance. I hope they thoroughly investigate his family and associates and deport them (and seize their assets prior to doing so.) Congress needs to revise the "Diversity VISA" program and the Immigration laws to a pre-1965 (at least) policy that looks out for the country first and maintains some semblance of demographic stability and social cohesion.

... And, Trump is President. Not a king or dictator that can rule by fiat. He has to deal with Congress and Courts. He might want to not allow terrorist Muslims in (or allow them to stay) but he is limited on what he can do because Democrats and some Courts, apparently, want them.

Pud grew up under a Parliamentory system. Although on the surface it appears the same, it's quite different from a Constitutional Republic - and I believe our system is more nuanced and complex. Ours requires a broad concensus to get things done, and was set up that way on purpose. We have an underlying Constitution which gives certain specific rights to the individual, and the Left hasn't managed to completly undermine that yet.

But his biggest handicap is trusting media sources who have their own anti-liberty ''progressive'' agenda - and who have joined those whose goal is a one-world Left-wing fascist government, run by them.

Pud grew up under a Parliamentory system. Although on the surface it appears the same, it's quite different from a Constitutional Republic - and I believe our system is more nuanced and complex. Ours requires a broad concensus to get things done, and was set up that way on purpose. We have an underlying Constitution which gives certain specific rights to the individual, and the Left hasn't managed to completly undermine that yet.

But his biggest handicap is trusting media sources who have their own anti-liberty ''progressive'' agenda - and who have joined those whose goal is a one-world Left-wing fascist government, run by them.

Yeah, but as Justice Robert H. Jackson said in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I don't see why illegals and foreigners, especially Muslim ones from Muslim lands, deserve the same Constitutional rights as citizens. If they want to visit, emigrate, go to school, do business, they should be subject to extreme vetting and legal paperwork- going so far as to wear an ankle bracelet so we can track their GPS, sign a document stating that it is ok for the government to monitor their bank accounts, enter their premises, and monitor their correspondence/communications. This could be done on a sliding scale, depending on country of origin, religion, wealth, purpose of visit, intention to stay or go home, etc. If they are honest, law-abiding people they should be happy to undergo some irritation in order to find a new life here in the States.

Yeah, but as Justice Robert H. Jackson said in his dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I don't see why illegals and foreigners, especially Muslim ones from Muslim lands, deserve the same Constitutional rights as citizens. If they want to visit, emigrate, go to school, do business, they should be subject to extreme vetting and legal paperwork- going so far as to wear an ankle bracelet so we can track their GPS, sign a document stating that it is ok for the government to monitor their bank accounts, enter their premises, and monitor their correspondence/communications. This could be done on a sliding scale, depending on country of origin, religion, wealth, purpose of visit, intention to stay or go home, etc. If they are honest, law-abiding people they should be happy to undergo some irritation in order to find a new life here in the States.

So you're not in favour of the constitution after all? All of that is in breach of it.

Pud grew up under a Parliamentory system. Although on the surface it appears the same, it's quite different from a Constitutional Republic - and I believe our system is more nuanced and complex. Ours requires a broad concensus to get things done, and was set up that way on purpose. We have an underlying Constitution which gives certain specific rights to the individual, and the Left hasn't managed to completly undermine that yet.

You need to tell the present incumbent in the WH that.

Quote

But his biggest handicap is trusting media sources who have their own anti-liberty ''progressive'' agenda - and who have joined those whose goal is a one-world Left-wing fascist government, run by them.

Its funny...The media has been pretty much accurate on what its reported (Fox, RT, Sputnik and Breitbart excepted) about Trump and his train wreck. Remember it was the WP that first reported about Flynn, and only then was Flynn fired/asked to resign. I suspect the reason wasn't because Flynn had done anything wrong (he is alleged to have since then) but Trump didn't want the shit to stick to him. But since then, there's been numerous individuals thrown under the bus when Trump felt the heat.

So you're not in favour of the constitution after all? All of that is in breach of it.

As I mentioned as Justice Jackson wrote Terminiello v. Chicago, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." At some point your "rights" don't mean much when they are sawing your head off or raping your kid.

In some circumstances the Constitutional protections should apply only to citizens (not that we are doing that great of a job there) - not for illegals, "refugees," and foreigners. They still, of course, have their natural rights as all people do. The legal non-citizens would have to sign a document ceding some of them for the benefit of being allowed here. Prove good conduct, go through the legal channels, pay whatever fees, prove financial stability, and go through a background check and allow the government to "check up" on you and your behavior.

Illegals, of course, should be sent back immediately and any assets seized to help cover some of the expense of deportation.

Islam should be considered a foreign political movement- not a religion- and treated as such. Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, far from it, but enough of them are, lots help with funding and logistics, and many others tacitly support- especially as the Islamic population grows, as we see in polls in Europe.

As I mentioned as Justice Jackson wrote Terminiello v. Chicago, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." At some point your "rights" don't mean much when they are sawing your head off or raping your kid.

In some circumstances the Constitutional protections should apply only to citizens (not that we are doing that great of a job there) - not for illegals, "refugees," and foreigners. They still, of course, have their natural rights as all people do. The legal non-citizens would have to sign a document ceding some of them for the benefit of being allowed here. Prove good conduct, go through the legal channels, pay whatever fees, prove financial stability, and go through a background check and allow the government to "check up" on you and your behavior.

Illegals, of course, should be sent back immediately and any assets seized to help cover some of the expense of deportation.

Islam should be considered a foreign political movement- not a religion- and treated as such. Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, far from it, but enough of them are, lots help with funding and logistics, and many others tacitly support- especially as the Islamic population grows, as we see in polls in Europe.

If the wall works, the illegal alien will become an endangered species. This will lead to court challenges and the liberals demanding that illegals have the right to free, unhindered access to their ancestral migratory feeding grounds.

If the wall works, the illegal alien will become an endangered species. This will lead to court challenges and the liberals demanding that illegals have the right to free, unhindered access to their ancestral migratory feeding grounds.

Mark my words.

I actually do have some concern regarding a wall with regard to animals, even livestock, which is why I think landmines ("smart" mines, proper signage, etc) and surveillance/capture using drones, horses, jeeps, etc is a better, and cheaper, option. Maybe even a DMZ of sorts with a shoot to kill order (with proper signage and advertising campaign so all know the dangers of attempting.) With "The Wall" around urban crossing areas. We also should periodically, in certain areas where the geology is amenable to tunnel, use those seismic machines energy companies use to shake the ground near possible tunnels and get them to collapse.

Also, illegals now in the USA are trying to keep new comers out, as their wages have risen 33% since Trump came to office. They don't want their cousins coming up and ruining that.

Modern Mexico is basically a Germanic State at the leadership level. They like authoritarian leaders, and don't give a damn about the Indians. Many illegals will leave the country, and what will remain will be mostly upper-class Mexicans who identify closely with the Caucasian Conservative way of life. The Hispanic vote in the last election going to Trump is something the DNC won't talk about.

Also, illegals now in the USA are trying to keep new comers out, as their wages have risen 33% since Trump came to office. They don't want their cousins coming up and ruining that.

Modern Mexico is basically a Germanic State at the leadership level. They like authoritarian leaders, and don't give a damn about the Indians. Many illegals will leave the country, and what will remain will be mostly upper-class Mexicans who identify closely with the Caucasian Conservative way of life. The Hispanic vote in the last election going to Trump is something the DNC won't talk about.

Yep, the rich ones have been coming for years but especially during the times when the cartels were really going at it. And, interestingly, even the illegal (and legal) trabajeros are racist towards other "Hispanics" and blacks. Sometimes it is joking around but also, especially when the economy and building is slower, it is real and they pick on non-Mexicans, the legal ones on illegals, will only give work to people from their country, etc. The legal Mexicans used to call the illegals "mojado" ("wetback") and have terms for Hondurans, more ethnic Indian-blooded Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, etc.

You know how Trump is a reactionary, undisciplined toddler who just says and tweets whatever comes into his head without thinking it through or the consequences? Yeah? Well it seems that because he went on twatter and the TV to say what should be done to the arrested and charged suspect in this case (execution, justice system a joke, shipped to Gitmo etc) will likely as not ensure that the prosecutor cannot make a case for execution if there is a guilty verdict. Precisely because Trump will be quoted by the defence as influencing the outcome!